Thomas Jefferson's texts: a rheroric in context

Before I attempt to answer this question myself, some observations about the dialogue form itself should be made. It is possible that it came from the scene in Sentimental Journey that I analyzed above, when Yorick talks to himself discussing his actions. There is even the same distinction in the novel, considering that Sterne's Judgment equals reason and Jefferson's Head, “When the heart flies out before the understanding, it saves the judgment a world of pains” (14). It is the same distinction with quasi-personification but Jefferson's letter is likely to have some other sources too. His beginning also resembles The Consolation of Philosophy written by the Roman statesman Boethius in 524 (Hayes 336). It was one of the most famous and influential medieval texts, and Jefferson must have read it. He does not quote Boethius directly in “My Head and My Heart”, but it is plausible that he took it as an example when he began to write the dialogue. In Consolations, Boethius depicts himself, thrown in prison because of the false accusation, grieving about his fortune and lamenting that he is still alive:

Yet Death passes by the wretched,

Shuts his ear and slumbers deep;

Will not heed the cry of anguish,

Will not close the eyes that weep.

<…>

Cruel Life still halts and lingers,

Though I loathe his weary race Translated from Latin by H.R. James. (n. p.)

Jefferson does not call for death but he writes something similar: “I am indeed the most wretched of all earthly beings. Overwhelmed with grief, every fibre of my frame distended beyond its natural powers to bear, I would willingly meet whatever catastrophe should leave me no more to feel or to fear” (par. 3). At the end of the dialogue, the Heart recapitulates, “I feel more fit for death than life” (par. 21), claiming that in its present condition, it is best for the writer to die. It can be said about both Boethius and Jefferson's Heart that they feel “more dead than alive”.

In Consolations, Philosophy who looks like a woman appears next. She drives away the Muses that accompanied Boethius and, saying that the time “calls rather for healing than for lamentation” (n. p.), starts to reproach him for letting himself become so miserable. Jefferson's Head plays the similar role when it says: “Harsh therefore as the medicine may be, it is my office to administer it” (par. 6) and begins recollecting the follies that the Heart has demonstrated since the writer's first meeting with Maria. However, if Philosophy is seemingly irritated but still calm, coming to “lighten the burden”, the Head is sarcastic: “You will be pleased to remember that <…> I never ceased whispering to you that we had no occasion for new acquaintance” (par. 6). It claims that its duty is to provide the medicine but it hardly has any. While Philosophy presents her reasoning step by step and slowly drives Boethius to the acceptance of his position, the Head just claims it would have done better without the Heart. So, while Boethius willingly agrees to follow Philosophy's argumentation, Jefferson's Heart makes counterarguments that make the Head exclaim: “Thou art the most incorrigible of all the beings that ever sinned!” (par. 10). At that moment, the system in which one part is complaining about its misfortunes and the other one advises treatment fails, because the Heart does not accept the argumentation of the Head.

Jefferson, unlike Boethius, does not introduce an external being to bring consolation but creates a dialogue between two opposite parts of himself. Due to that fact, this conversation becomes an analysis of the appropriateness of his actions. According to Sterne's Sermons of Mr. Yorick (1760), which was also esteemed by Jefferson, self-knowledge and judging of passions and inclinations of one's heart is necessary but it is more difficult than judging other people. That is what Jefferson attempts to accomplish in his dialogue: he tries to find a way to give a moral estimation of his past behavior. The problem is, according to Sterne, that “we are deceived in judging of ourselves, just as we are in judging of other things, when our passions and inclinations are called as counsellors,” so “however easy this knowledge of one's self may appear at first sight, it is otherwise when we come to examine; since not only in practice, but even in speculation and theory, we find it one of the hardest and most painful lessons” (58-59). Sterne does not give a straight answer to the question how, then, one should understand whether what they do is moral or not. A solution can be found in Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).

Smith claims that to self-examine one's behavior, a person must divide into two. One is the actor, and the other one is the spectator and the examiner who either approves or disapproves of the actions. He writes, “I, the examiner and the judge, represent a different character from that other I, the person whose conduct is examined into and judged of” (101). This is basically what Jefferson does in his dialogue. In this case, the Heart is an actor responsible for the beginning of friendship with Cosways and the Head is the examiner that judges the acquaintance with Maria and Heart's attachment to her as a folly. Nevertheless, it also works the other way round, and Heart takes place of the judge. It gives two examples of the Head being in charge and calculating the effects of an action, but eventually doing the wrong thing. First, the Head refutes a weary soldier who asks to let him get behind the chariot. When the Heart takes control and goes back to help the soldier, it cannot find him. Second, there is a poor woman who comes to ask for charity. According to the Head's estimate, she will soon spend all the money to get drunk, so she should not be given alms. The Heart, on the other hand, considers the Head's calculations wrong and decides to give the poor woman some money which she, as it turned out, needed to place her child to school. Thus, the Heart can also judge and disapprove of certain actions conducted by the Head, so the examination is mutual.

This passage is parallel to the similar one in Sterne's novel. In Sentimental Journey, Yorick encounters a monk who comes to beg for charity. At the beginning, Yorick drives him away but later, he meets this monk once again and gives him some money. Jefferson's stories are not the exact repetition of Sterne's scene with the monk, and so Arthur Scheer infers that Sentimental Journey has nothing to do with it, and that it is rather an example of social inequality that Jefferson witnessed in his life (332). It may have indeed actually happened to Jefferson himself, but he speaks about these particular incidents in the letter following Sterne's narrative, and because of his example, Jefferson paid attention to these instances and included them into his dialogue.

Now, it is time to go back to the question of the winner of this argument. According to the rules of dialogue composition in ancient Greek and Roman cultures, which were accepted by medieval and classicist traditions, the last one to speak also wins the debate. Jefferson gives the last word to the Heart but the argument does not seem to be over. Jefferson finds the last monologue of the Heart a “favorable proposition” to interrupt the dialogue and finish his letter. So, he gives the victory to the Heart, which is logical, since it was meant to be a letter that would show his affection to the addressee. The worthiness of Jefferson's friendship with Maria was defended by the Heart, so it would be strange if it was lost. Despite all this, some researchers like Morton White and Julian Boyd question this simplicity and say that the Head has strong arguments, so it can pretend to be the winner (Engels 413). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the argumentation of both disagreeing parties--the Heart and the Head's.

Jeremy Engels characterizes the Heart as naïve, childlike, honest, empathetic, and social, while the Head judges, gives advice, proposes rational treatment and berates sentiments (415-416). The Head's arguments also look to be influenced by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BC). It is confirmed that Jefferson read Epicurus and thought of himself as of an epicurean (Wright 228). He called that system the “most rational” of all ancient philosophy (Holowchak, “The “Reluctant” Politian” 277) and said that the best way to govern oneself is to stick to the epicurean doctrine (Richard, 432). Epicurean ethics is based on egoistic hedonism, which contends that happiness is the aim of life achieved through pleasures, so living a pleasant life is virtuous. In addition, a man who wants to live by the epicurean doctrine “does not desire great wealth, luxury goods, political power” (O'Keefe par. 45). In this respect, Jefferson seeks to organize his private domestic world in his Virginian estate of Monticello as a place where he can retire from the political tumult and lead a tranquil life. It is, Epicurus said, the way wise men live their lives, and Jefferson indeed was considered a Sage of Monticello by his contemporaries such as John Adams, who wrote to him in 1814, “The most exalted of our young Genius's in Boston have an Ambition to See Montecello, its Library and Sage” (par. 1). So, it is not the case that Jefferson, in his dialogue, gives the arguments he disagrees with to one side just so that the other one had something to challenge.

For Epicurus, pleasures are the tools to reach happiness, as “[t]he magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together” Translated from Greek by Robert Drew Hicks (par. 3). Jefferson's Head expresses similar things saying that “the art of life is the art of avoiding pain” (par. 20), which correlates with the epicurean definition of happiness as the absence of pain. The Head continues, “The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, & to suffice for our own happiness. <…> Leave the bustle & tumult of society to those who have not talents to occupy themselves without them” (par. 20). It is mainly the retelling of Epicurus' thoughts about the wise conduct of life away from politics, society and other people's troubles. Moreover, it not just the “pain of mind” that tortures Jefferson, but his body aches as well. Not long before the departure of Cosways, he injured his right wrist badly, and his state of mind and thoughts of the parting with Maria make it more painful, as the Head emphasizes: “All night you tossed us from one side of the bed to the other. No sleep, no rest. The poor crippled wrist too, never left one moment in the same position, now up, now down, now here, now there; was it to be wondered at if its pains returned?” (par. 20) Thus the Head concludes that he could not reach happiness and live properly insofar as he does not follow the epicurean doctrine, which brings him both emotional and bodily pains.

In its condemnation of social activity, the Head goes even further and denounces friendship as another kind of painful attachment: “Friendship is but another name for an alliance with the follies & the misfortunes of others” (par. 20). This development of the argument is not epicurean, as Epicurus writes that “of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends” (par. 27). The Head equals friendship with other social interactions that lead to pain and distress, whereas the Heart contests arguments for self-isolation from the society as the way to secure oneself from troubles and live a happy life: “Let the gloomy monk, sequestered from the world, seek unsocial pleasures in the bottom of his cell! <…> Their supreme wisdom is supreme folly; & [sic] they mistake for happiness the mere absence of pain” (Jefferson par. 21). For the Heart, the most “sublime delight” is to share feelings with others. Therefore, the question about the necessity of friendship becomes the question about the nature of compassion and the source of moral judgment. To understand if acquaintance with Maria was a right thing, it is essential to figure out who judges and who has the right to do so. As it was said about Jefferson's reception of Adam Smith, the Head is the examiner in this situation but the Heart challenges the legitimacy of that position.

The Head calculates the disadvantages of having friends, being compassionate, and helping others and concludes that one does not need all that because it makes life harder. The Heart, however, says that the Head cannot pass moral judgments:

When nature assigned us the same habitation, she gave us over it a divided empire. To you she allotted the field of science; to me that of morals. <…> In like manner, in denying to you the feelings of sympathy, of benevolence, of gratitude, of justice, of love, of friendship, she has excluded you from their control. To these she has adapted the mechanism of the heart. Morals were too essential to the happiness of man to be risked on the uncertain combinations of the head. She laid their foundation therefore in sentiment, not in science.

Thus, the character chosen to judge the Heart's behavior in the end is denied to do so. The Heart recalls unjust deeds of the Head which I have already discussed earlier: the cases of the tired soldier denied help and the poor woman mistaken for a drunkard.

One could infer that in this “divided empire” where the sensations are in the Heart's jurisdiction, matters of politics, strategy, and war would be given to the Head. However, this is what Jefferson writes about the American Revolution:

If our country, when pressed with wrongs at the point of the bayonet, had been governed by its heads instead of its hearts, where should we have been now? Hanging on a gallows as high as Hamans. You began to calculate & to compare wealth and numbers: we threw up a few pulsations of our warmest blood; we supplied enthusiasm against wealth and numbers; we put our existence to the hazard when the hazard seemed against us, and we saved our country.

According to Jefferson, politics is also in the realm of the Heart which leaves the Head occupied only with science. This point of view resonates with David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (1739) where he articulates the idea that only passions can prove moral judgment, while “reason alone can never produce any action, or give rise to volition” which makes it “the slave of the passions” (283). For Jefferson, the only one who should act is the one who could judge about the moral side of his behavior. The Head lacks this ability and is therefore subordinate to the Heart.

In this dialogue, the Heart wins because it is, in the first place, a letter to a friend, but this does not mean that we can, or should draw any conclusions about the process of Jefferson's own decision-making supposing it never changed with the course of time and in varied circumstances. This letter is notable because it shows Jefferson's rhetorical and philosophical sources and influences, as well as the way he interpreted and used them in his own texts seeking a compromise between “the rational element of virtue” and “wisdom of sentiments” (Quinby, 353-354). Rhetorically, Jefferson combines Boethius structuring the beginning of the dialogue similarly to how he did in Consolations of Philosophy and Laurence Sterne whose narrative he imitates in several parts of the letter. Attempting to understand whether one should act according to his reason or his senses, Jefferson turns to philosophers he read such as Epicurus, Adam Smith and David Hume and divides their arguments between his Head and his Heart. Jefferson ends the conversation at the “favorable proposition” preferring to give the last word and, therefore, victory to the Heart which is caused by the circumstances writing the letter.

2.2 Sharing Experience of Traveling through France and Italy

Some of Jefferson's letters such as “My Head and My Heart” reveal his philosophy and the perception of the world. Jefferson readily shared his thoughts and ideas about morals, literature and other spheres of life. These letters being an insight into his private life became an important source for researchers who study Jefferson as an ideologist. He did not discuss his philosophical views in every letter, but it does not make them less valuable because they still provide historical and biographical information and allow us to examine his rhetoric not necessarily connected to the politics.

Jefferson maintained active correspondences with different people. Some of them he considered close friends, others were just acquaintances, and communication with still others was purely formal. Naturally, he shared different type and amount of information with distinct recipients and his self-expression depended on the situation and the addressee. A special kind of correspondent for Jefferson were his female friends whom he wrote his most exquisite letters and revealed such sensibility that eighteenth century conventions made difficult to show to his male-friends (Burstein, Mowbray 30).

Rhetoric of Jefferson's letters and the difference in style, depending on what he wanted so say and whom he addressed, has been partly studied. A rare case when Jefferson aimed a private letter to Elbridge Gerry (1799) to be read by common public was analyzed from historical and rhetorical pints of view as an intersection of his public and private selves (Trees). Jefferson also used letter for organizing society around him and present himself as a symbol of liberty and enlightenment for which he needed specific expressions that drew attentions of several scholars (Oberg, “A New Republican Order”; McDonald). Sandra Rebok examined Jefferson's correspondence with other significant figures of his time (“Enlightened Correspondence”). A lot of researches were conducted by Andrew Burstein who focused his studies on Jefferson's private life, which is mainly represented by his letters. Burstein analyzed Jefferson's correspondence with family (“Jefferson and the Familiar Letters”) and the distinction in rhetoric between letters addressed to his protégé and friend James Monroe and his friend and partisan ally James Madison (“Jefferson's Madison versus Jefferson's Monroe”). In his book The Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist, Burstein analyzed some details and features of Jefferson's letter style such as influence of the ancient Roman classic on his style (117-123) and context of usage of the word “sincere” in addressing his recipient (158).

These works provide a good overview of Jefferson's private rhetoric and topics he preferred to discuss in his letters. It is hard to name features universal for all kinds of letters. Jefferson showed his sensibility and emotions in correspondence with the family and partly with Monroe. In other circumstances, he revealed his curiosity about the latest research on natural science and languages and shared his own ideas on these and other matters but, unlike in Notes on Virginia, the discussions were much less politically determined.

Considering this rhetorical difference in correspondence with different addressees, it is promising to analyze and compare letters written in one period and narrating about the same event but addressed to different people. This event is Jefferson's journey through Northern France and Southern Italy undertaken in spring and early summer 1787. An excuse for the journey was the treatment for his injured wrist. Jefferson's friends advised him to go to Aix-en-Provence because of its curative properties that would make the wrist heal more quickly. Even though Jefferson had little faith in healing power of Aix, it gave him a good pretext to travel (Hayes 340). In this journey, Jefferson writes many letters some of which are fully dedicated to political duties and do not concern his traveling experience; in others, he shares his impressions about the places he visits. Apart from the letters, he wrote notes on this tour which he did not intend to either publish or send to anyone and was made for his own use. Finally, in summer 1788, when a year had passed since his journey, Jefferson wrote “Hints for Americans Travelling in Europe” based on his experience of journeying through France and Italy and the following tour in Holland. “Hints” was a list of recommendation for John Routledge Jr. and Thomas Lee Shippen, two young men who asked Jefferson's advice since they wanted to take a similar trip. He wrote “Hints” quickly but managed to include enough details that were omitted in “Notes”. “Hints” also explain Jefferson's priorities in traveling. In this chapter, I will compare the most illustrative letters written during this journey and concerning it with each other, “Hints to Americans” and “Notes on Tour” in relation to their style and content.

In “Hints”, Jefferson composes a list of things an American traveler should pay attention to in which he mentions agriculture, mechanical arts, manufactures, gardens, architecture, statuary, paintings, politics and courts (par. 47-51, 53-54). Knowledge about these things a traveler should apply to improve his own country when he returns home. Traveling, therefore, is more than simple sightseeing but rather an educational process and a way to gather information. His journey through France and Italy he calls a “continued feast of new objects and new ideas” (“…to Chastellux”, par 1).

Facts that Jefferson writes down in his “Notes on Tour” perfectly correspond to the objects of attention. The notes he makes are mostly devoted to the type and color of soil, prices, commerce, life conditions of people, their wealth and production they make for living. In his letter to Philip Mazei (Apr. 4, 1787), Jefferson indicates that the aim of his journey is educational rather than entertaining, otherwise it would not be worth it, “From men of that class [gardeners] I have derived the most satisfactory information in the course of my journey and have sought their acquaintance with as much industry as I have avoided that of others who would have made me waste my time on good dinners and good society. For these objects one need not leave Paris” (par. 1). Detailed descriptions of landscape are not as poetic as the ones in the Notes on Virginia and are usually included in connection to characteristics of agriculture and amount of production. When he makes an aesthetics evaluation, it is short and undescriptive, as, for instance, in “occasionally broken into beautiful vallies” (par. 8), “[f]rom the summit of the first hill after leaving Pont St. Esprit, there is a beautiful view of the bridge at about 2. miles distance, and a fine landscape of the country both ways” (par. 20), “[t]he extensive and numerous fields of St. foin, in general bloom, are beautiful” (par. 73). It is not a description but rather an indication that some place is worth seeing. In addition to that, in “Notes on Tour”, there are a few tables (par. 81) and drawings of agricultural tools (par. 16, 45, 48, 50, 60, 78, 91, 95).

Although Jefferson gives little information about his own conditions and even less of his emotions and feeling leaving to the letters his impressions not related to practical knowledge, it would be a simplification to think that does not also notes his thoughts about and considerations about things he saw. These are not as long and fully reasoned as discourses in Jefferson's public works and are statements that can be further developed if necessary. They correlate with ideas articulated in Jefferson's public writings as well. For example, he writes about Champagne in “Notes on Tour”, “But I observe women and children carrying heavy burthens, and laboring with the hough [sic]. This is an unequivocal indication of extreme poverty. Men, in a civilized country, never expose their wives and children to labor above their force or sex, as long as their own labor can protect them from it” (par. 2). Claims that in civilized society women do not perform hard work is found in Notes in Virginia. Describing the order in Native American tribes, Jefferson says that women do all the labor and the cause of that he sees in the lack of civil development, “This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality” (Jefferson, Notes on Virginia 64). Unlike Native Americans who just have not yet formed a modern civil society with laws to secure equality, poor people in Champagne are driven by their indigence to the same state of barbarism of Indian tribes. Jefferson, thus, writes a certain analysis of the situation he witnesses according to his views in general.

He uses the memories collected in “Notes on Tour” while writing his letters during this journey. The first note is dated March 3^rd, the first recovered letter from this journey was written on March 15^th to Jefferson's secretary William Short. Jefferson shares the same things he wrote in his notes about the nature of the country and poverty of its people. He sometimes even uses the same expressions such as “an unequivocal indication of extreme poverty”, which can be found in both “Notes” (par. 2) and the letter (par. 1) or, about Beaujolais, “This is the richest country I ever beheld” (“Notes”, par. 11), (“…to William Short, 15 May”, par. 1). In this letter, Jefferson expresses some ideas he will later include in “Hints”. He writes to Short, “I have not visited at all the manufactures of this place: because a knowledge of them would be useless, and would extrude from the memory other things more worth retaining” (par. 1). The idea that a traveler should not see everything that seems interesting and must choose carefully is articulated in “Hints'. Jefferson warns his recipients against “seeing too much”, so a “judicious selection is to be aimed at, taking care that the indolence of the moment have no influence on the decision” and unnecessary little details “will load the memory with trifles, fatigue the attention and waste that and your time” (par. 40). He makes that selection on his journey and also pays attention to things he marks in “Hints”, “Architecture, painting, sculpture, antiquities, agriculture, the condition of the laboring poor fill all my moments. Hitherto I have derived as much satisfaction and even delight from my journey as I could propose to myself” (…to William Short, 15 May”, par. 1). Here, he explicitly expresses his attitude to his journey saying that he enjoys it which he does not do so straightforwardly in “Notes”.

The next letter was written on March 20^th from Nimes to his friend Madame de Tessé, and the difference between “Notes” and the letter in description of Jefferson's staying in the city is striking. In “Notes”, this part focuses on fruit trees cultivated in the region and wine production (par. 20). Whiting to Madame de Tessé, Jefferson, on the other hand, exposes his sensibility and fascination with the beauty,

Here I am, Madame, gazing whole hours at the Maison quarrée, like a lover at his mistress. The stocking--weavers and silk spinners around it consider me as an hypochondriac Englishman, about to write with a pistol the last chapter of his history. This is the second time I have been in love since I left Paris. The first was with a Diana at the Chateau de Laye Epinaye in the Beaujolois, a delicious morsel of sculpture, by Michael Angelo Slodtz (par. 1).

Jefferson mentioned the sculpture of Diana and Endymion (in the letter, he eloquently writes about Diana alone), which he saw in Beaujolais, in “Notes” and used almost the same words calling it “a very superior morsel of sculpture” (par. 11). “Delicious” in the letter instead of “superior” in “Notes” makes the sentence more figurative.

The first sentence with the expression “[gazing] like a lover at his mistress” defines the tone of the whole letter. The theme of love is the defining characteristic of this letter, although admiration is not the only feeling Jefferson expresses. Recollecting his memories about visiting Vienne a couple of days before he arrived to Nimes, he writes that were his addressee with him she “would have seen [him] more angry than [he] hope [she] will ever see[s] [him]” (“…to Madame de Tessé, 20 March”, par. 1). This anger, however, is a result of his love for antiquity. He writes of his impression of Pretorian Palace (now called Temple of Augustus and Livia), one of the most remarkable Roman remains in France, “defaced by the Barbarians”. Love also lets Jefferson not only share his experience but connect with the recipient, “[l]oving, as you do Madame, the precious remains of antiquity, loving architecture, gardening, a warm sun, and a clear sky” (par. 1). Jefferson forms a connection with his addressee based on the common interest, and it is important that the addressee is female because it allow him to use such delicate rhetoric that is unlikely to be possible in correspondence with his male friends.

Continuing to incorporate in “Notes” the information mostly concerning agricultural production, Jefferson shares interesting details about his impression of the country and spoken language in letter of March 27^th and 29^th to William Short. About his arriving to Aix-en-Provence, Jefferson writes, “I am now in the land of corn, wine, oil, and sunshine. What more can man ask of heaven? If I should happen to die at Paris I will beg of you to send me here, and have me exposed to the sun. I am sure it will bring me to life again” (“…to William Short, 27 March”, par.1). This description with proclamation of resurrecting powers of the place is quite artistic in comparison to the purely factual information given in “Notes”. In the letter to Short of March 29^th, Jefferson shares some noteworthy observations about the language used in the region, “Every letter is pronounced, the articulation is distinct, no nasal sounds disfigure it, and on the whole it stands close to the Italian and Spanish in point of beauty. I think it a general misfortune that historical circumstances gave a final prevalence to the French instead of the Provençale language” (par. 1). Jefferson was interested in linguistic and foreign languages (Hauer 879) and used his chance to make his own observations of a language he never heard before.

At the beginning of April, Jefferson wrote two letters that are viewed as his adaptation of Laurence Sterne's narrative in Sentimental Journey (Burstein, Mowbray 22-24). These are the letters to Madame de Tott (5 April) and to Marquis de Lafayette (11 April). To Madame de Tott, Jefferson writes,

A traveler, sais I, retired at night to his chamber in an Inn, all his effects contained in a single trunk, all his cares circumscribed by the walls of his apartment, unknown to all, unheeded, and undisturbed, writes, reads, thinks, sleeps, just in the moments when nature and the movements of his body and mind require. Charmed with the tranquility of his little cell, he finds how few are our real wants, how cheap a thing is happiness, how expensive a one pride. He views with pity the wretched rich, whom the laws of the world have submitted to the cumbrous trappings of rank (par. 1)

When Yorick in Sentimental Journey describes his preparations for his trip, he says that for traveling without much baggage, he takes only “half a dozen shirts and a black pair of silk breeches” (7) and a coat he has on. In the next chapter, he continues, “When man is at peace with man, how much lighter than a feather is the heaviest of metals in his hands! he pulls out his purse, and holding it airily and uncompress'd, looks round him, as if he sought for an object to share it with” (8). Peace with oneself leads to realizing the pointlessness of possessing many material goods. Jefferson expresses the similar idea of a traveler who carries his things in “one trunk” and, undisturbed by the outer worlds, knows that happiness is cheap and simple.

Jefferson referred to Sterne in the letters to his make friends as well. Writing to Lafayette, he describes the inhabitants of the land their living conditions and instructs how to obtain this knowledge, you must be absolutely incognito, you must ferret the people out of their hovels as I have done, look into their kettles, eat their bread, loll on their beds under pretense of resting yourself, but in fact to find if they are soft. You will feel a sublime pleasure in the course of this investigation, and a sublimer one hereafter when you shall be able to apply your knowledge to the softening of their beds, or the throwing a morsel of meat into the kettle of vegetables. (par. 1)

Thematically, it continues the reflection on simplicity of traveling and modesty of a traveler that lets his share a meal with poor local people. It parallels a passage in the Sentimental Journey when Yorick dines with a local family in France. He, however, does not seek knowledge but rather emotional impressions and pleasures in joining the people. For Yorick, this family dinner is “was a feast of love”. He sits with these people “like a son of the family” and says “to invest myself in the character as speedily as I could, I instantly borrowed the old man's knife, and taking up the loaf, cut myself a hearty luncheon” (Sterne 69). Sterne and Jefferson both write about sharing bread with people but whereas for Yorick, it is a way of emotional connection with others, Jefferson uses it to gain information that can be applied for improvements, as he states the primary goal of the journey to be education.

Jefferson manages to use his journey not only to educate himself but also to teach his eldest daughter Martha who traveled with him to Paris when he was appointed an American minister in France. In the first two letters to her of March 28^th and April 7^th, he does not share any particular detail about his your journey but in the letter of May 5^th, he gives her an assignment, “In order to exercise your geography I will give you a detail of my journey. You must therefore take your map and trace out the following places” (par. 1). He then lists the places he visited which Martha should mark on a map transforming his traveling experience into a lesson for his daughter.

In another letter (May 21^st), Jefferson tells Martha about nightingales in Vaucluse,

This delightful bird had given me a rich treat before at the fountain of Vaucluse. After visiting the tomb of Laura at Avignon, I went to see this fountain, a noble one of itself, and rendered for ever famous by the songs of Petrarch who lived near it. I arrived there somewhat fatigued, and sat down by the fountain to repose myself. <…> To add to the enchantment of the scene, every tree and bush was filled with nightingales in full song. (par. 1)

Whereas in “Notes on Tour” Jefferson writes a short mention of nightingales, “the valley abounds peculiarly with nightingales” (par. 65), in his letter he pictures a delightful scene. It resembles the letter to Madame de Tessé with description of a visit to a monument of the past and pleasant impression caused by it. It the letter to Madame Tessé, Jefferson describes a breathtaking view; letter to Martha has traces of that sublimity of rhetoric (“noble one of itself”, “rendered for ever famous”) but it does not have the same playfulness of language.

The occurrence of nightingales in the letter is not just aesthetical. Jefferson wants Martha to her this bird singing so that, when came back to America, she could compare it with the local birds, “Endeavor, my dear, to make yourself acquainted with the music of this bird, that when you return to your own country you may be able to estimate it's merit in comparison with that of the mocking bird” (par. 1). Martha, therefore, should be as attentive as a proper American traveler to notice traits of the visited country and collate them with things in her own stare.

This analysis shows the difference in rhetoric and content in Jefferson's letters and notes written during his journey through France and Italy. His “Notes on Tour” omit personal information and consists of the data on living conditions, social order and agriculture of the places he visits. Jefferson's letters provide his impressions more openly. His massages to his secretary William Short give some interesting details about his thoughts induced by the new experience in the journey. Jefferson's letters Martha are of didactic character as he attempts to teach her something by sharing details of his journey. The letter to Lafayette is also informational and offers a method for acquiring knowledge, which is an interpretation of Sterne's narrative. Jefferson interprets Sentimental Journey in his letter to Madame de Tott presenting himself as a traveler who finds happiness in simplicity and does not care much about the material goods. His letter to Madame de Tessé is the most emotional of them all and the way of sharing the feeling caused by the sights he sees helps him to create a bond with the recipient. Although in Jefferson's correspondence about this journey there are some sentimental elements and allusions to Sterne, the main goal of his travel is educational and he finds different ways of sharing what he learned whether in the form of hints, advice, narrative and lesson.

Conclusion

The rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson was shaped by many factors: his interests, the authors whose works influenced him and the purpose of every particular text. The main condition on which the style and content of his writings depended was their publicity. Texts meant to be read by general public are more politically inclined, exposing very few personal details even when sharing private information can be expected from the title. Such is the situation with Autobiography, in which Jefferson focuses on his participation in historical events without emphasizing his personal contribution. Politics shapes structure and subjects in Notes on the State of Virginia and influences Jefferson's presentation of observations that are not directly related to politics. Having had practical interests in the natural sciences and language and looking up to the antiquity in terms of style, philosophy and social order, Jefferson incorporated these subjects in his texts.

His letters, which were discussed here as examples of his private writings, are not so closely connected to politics and provide an insight to his philosophical contemplations. Morals and attempts to understand what--reason or the senses--one should rely on while acting and making decisions became the main theme for Jefferson's letter to his friend Maria Cosway in 1786. He wrote the central part of the letter as a dialogue between his Head and his Heart using different philosophies as the arguments for both parts. Addressing a friend, Jefferson defends the necessity of friendship in general and of this relationship in particular choosing his Heart and, therefore, senses and emotions to guide this time him but it could have been different in other circumstances. Many letters show that dependence of style and content on the recipient. As it is argued in this paper with respect to Jefferson's letters about his journey in 1787, he preferred to share different details with different addressees making his letters emotional, informative or educational. Both in his letters about the journey and in the one addressed to Maria Cosway, Jefferson interprets his favorite writer Laurence Sterne, partly adopting his narrative but adapting it to his own style.

Work cited

1. Adams, John. “John Adams”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0016-0001.

2. Appleby, Joyce, and Terence Ball. “Jefferson: Political Writings.” Cambridge University Press. 1999.

3. Appleby, Joyce. “What Is Still American in the Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson?” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 1982, pp. 287-309. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1918754.

4. Banes, Ruth A. “The Exemplary Self: Autobiography in Eighteenth Century America.” Biography, vol. 5, no. 3, 1982, pp. 226-239. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23539239.

5. Boethius, Consolations of Philosophy. Translated by James, Henry Rosher. Project Gutenberg, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm

6. Burstein, Andrew. “Jefferson and the Familiar Letter.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 14, no. 2, 1994, pp. 195-220. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3124221.

7. Burstein, Andrew, and Catherine Mowbray. “Jefferson and Sterne.” Early American Literature, vol. 29, no. 1, 1994, pp. 19-34. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25056954.

8. Burstein, Andrew. “The Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist.” University of Virginia Press. 1996.

9. Burstein, Andrew. “Jefferson's Madison versus Jefferson's Monroe.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, 1998, pp. 394-408. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27551866.

10. Brown, Ralph H. “Jefferson's Notes on Virginia.” Geographical Review, vol. 33, no. 3, 1943, pp. 467-473. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/209808.

11. Browne, Stephan Howard. Jefferson's Call for Nationhood. The First Inaugural Address. Texas A&M University Press: College Station, 2003.

12. Carrière, Joseph M. “The Manuscript of Jefferson's Unpublished Errata List for Abbé Morellet's Translation of the `Notes on Virginia.'” Papers of the Bibliographical Society, University of Virginia, vol. 1, 1948, pp. 3-24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40368918

13. Catanzariti, John. “Thomas Jefferson, Correspondent.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 102, 1990, pp. 1-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25081017.

14. Dana, William F. “The Declaration of Independence.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 13, no. 5, 1900, pp. 319-343. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1323337

15. Dugatkin, Lee Alan. “Buffon, Jefferson and the Theory of New World Degeneracy.” Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol. 12, no. 1, 6 June 2019, doi:10.1186/s12052-019-0107-0.

16. Engels, Jeremy. “Disciplining Jefferson: The Man within the Breast and the Rhetorical Norms of Producing Order.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 3, 2006, pp. 411-435. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41940085.

17. Epicurus. “Principal Doctrines”. Translated Hicks, Robert Drew. The Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html

18. Fabian, Bernhard. “Jefferson's Notes on Virginia: The Genesis of Query Xvii, The Different Religions Received into That State?” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 1, 1955, pp. 124-138. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1923099.

19. “First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-33-02-0116-0004

20. Franklin, Benjamin. Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Pine, Frank Woodworth. Project Gutenberg, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20203/20203-h/20203-h.htm

21. “From John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 20 December 1814”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6376

22. “From Thomas Jefferson to Chastellux, 4 April 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0255

23. “From Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May, 1825”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5212

24. “From Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 11 April 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0273

25. “From Thomas Jefferson to Madame de Tessé, 20 March 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0229

26. “From Thomas Jefferson to Madame de Tott, 5 April 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0262

27. “From Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 12 October 1786”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0309

28. “From Thomas Jefferson to Martha Jefferson, 5 May 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0327

29. “From Thomas Jefferson to Martha Jefferson, 21 May 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0350

30. “From Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazei, 4 April 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0258

31. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 15 March 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0224

32. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 27 March 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0242

33. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 29 March 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0246

34. Gordon-Reed, Annette and Peter S. Onuf. “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”. Thomas Jefferson the Empire of the Imagination. Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2016.

35. “Jefferson's Hints to Americans Travelling in Europe, 19 June 1788”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-13-02-0173

36. Jefferson, Thomas. The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. Dover Publications, Inc., 2017.

37. Jefferson, Thomas. “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Documenting the American South, https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html#p156

38. Jones, James F. Jr. “Montesquieu and Jefferson Revisited: Aspects of a Legacy”. The French Review, vol. 51, no. 4, 1978, pp. 577-585. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/389064.

39. Hale, Daryl. “Thomas Jefferson; Sublime or Sublimated Philosopher?” International Social Science Review, vol. 72, no. 3/4, 1997, pp. 75-83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41882239.

40. Hamelman, Stiven L. “Autobiography and Archive: Franklin, Jefferson and the Revised Self”. Midwest Quaterly, vol. 43, no. 2, 2002, pp. 125-142.

41. Hamowy, Ronald. “Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment: A Critique of Garry Wills's Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 4, 1979, pp. 503-523. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1925181

42. Hauer, Stanley R. “Thomas Jefferson and the Anglo-Saxon Language.” PMLA, vol. 98, no. 5, 1983, pp. 879-898. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/462265.

43. Hayes, Kevin J. The Road to Monticello. The Life and Mind of Thomas Jefferson. Oxford University Press, 2008.

44. Hellenbrand, Harold. “Roads to Happiness: Rhetorical and Philosophical Design in Jefferson's `Notes on the State of Virginia.'” Early American Literature, vol. 20, no. 1, 1985, pp. 3-23. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25056578.

45. Holowchak, M. Andrew. “The `Reluctant' Politician: Thomas Jefferson's Debt to Epicurus.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, 2012, pp. 277-297., www.jstor.org/stable/41342543.

46. Holowchak, Mark. “Philosophical Vignettes In Jefferson's Notes on Virginia.” Philosophy and Literature, vol. 37, no. 1, 2013, pp. 136-163. Research Gate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265875726_Philosophical_Vignettes_in_Jefferson's_Notes_on_Virginia.

47. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, reprinted from the Original Edition in three volumes and edited, with an analytical index, by L.A. Selby-Bigge, M.A. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/342.

48. Kessler, Sanford. “Locke's Influence on Jefferson's `Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.'” Journal of Church and State, vol. 25, no. 2, 1983, pp. 231-252. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23916205.

49. Lucas, Stephen E. “The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence”. Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and records Administration, vol. 22, no. 1, 1990, pp. 25-46.

50. “Marbois' Queries concerning Virginia, [before 30 November 1780]”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-04-02-0197.

51. McDonald, Robert M. S. “Thomas Jefferson and Historical Self-Construction: The Earth Belongs to the Living?” The Historian, vol. 61, no. 2, 1999, pp. 289-310. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24449704.

52. Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. The Spirit of Laws. Translated Thomas Nigent, Batoche House, 2001.

53. Nichols, David Andrew. “A Rejoinder to Jefferson's `Notes on Virginia': François Barbé De Marbois in Iroquoia, 1784.” New York History, vol. 84, no. 4, 2003, pp. 389-408. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23183536.

54. “Notes of a Tour into the Southern Parts of France, &c., 3 March-10 June 1787”. Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0389

55. Oberg, Barbara B. “A New Republican Order, Letter by Letter.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 25, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30043602.

56. Oberg, Barbara. “Notes on the State of Virginia: Thomas Jefferson's `Mysterious Obligation.'” The Princeton University Library Chronicle, vol. 67, no. 1, 2005, pp. 161-165. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.25290/prinunivlibrchro.67.1.0161.

57. O'Keefe, Tim. “Epicurus (341-271 B.C.E.)”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

58. Oliver, John W. “Thomas Jefferson--Scientist.” The Scientific Monthly, vol. 56, no. 5, 1943, pp. 460-467. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/17810.

59. Onuf, Peter S. “Jefferson's Empire. The Language of American Nationhood.” University Press of Virginia. 2000.

60. Ostrander, Gilman M. “Jefferson and Scottish Culture.” Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, vol. 5, no. 2, 1978, pp. 233-249., www.jstor.org/stable/41298719

61. Rebok, Sandra. “Enlightened Correspondents: The Transatlantic Dialogue of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Von Humboldt.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 116, no. 4, 2008, pp. 328-369. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27740462.